Vallery v. Brown et al
Filing
116
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 110 Motion for Discovery-related relief. The Defendants are to serve Vallery with supplemental responses to document requests, and, where appropriate, include statements under oath no late r than December 2, 2011. (Motion hearing set for 1/9/2012 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks.) Plaintiff may file a comprehensive supplemental opposition by December 15, 2011. The Defendants may reply to Vallery's Opposition (ECF No. 79 ) and any supplemental opposition by December 30, 2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks on 11/23/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lao)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RAYNARD VALLERY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
16
J. BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 08cv00095 DMS(RBB)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY-RELATED
RELIEF [ECF NO. 110]
17
18
Vallery’s Motion for Discovery-Related Relief was filed nunc
19
pro tunc to October 28, 2011 [ECF No. 110].
20
order directing the Defendants to (1) disclose missing pages from
21
the produced documents, (2) conduct a more diligent document
22
search, and (3) search for the correct classes of documents.
23
Vallery also seeks an order requiring any CDCR employee to (1) file
24
a declaration identifying policies regarding the destruction of the
25
documents sought and (2) file a declaration establishing whether
26
any documents were destroyed; Plaintiff requests that the person
27
who conducted the searches document the steps taken in doing so.
28
(Mot. Disc. Related Relief 2-3, ECF No. 110.)
1
Plaintiff seeks an
The Plaintiff also
08cv00095 DMS(RBB)
1
moves the Court for an “independent judicial determination of
2
whether Defendants’ document searches and reviews were diligent.”
3
(Id. at 3.)
4
On November 18, 2011, Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s
5
Motion for Discovery-Related Relief was filed, along with the
6
Declaration of John P. Walters and eight exhibits in support [ECF
7
No. 115].
8
denied because it is based, in part, on Vallery’s misunderstanding
9
of the exhibits and Court orders, and because Defendants properly
There, the Defendants argue that the Motion should be
10
complied with the Court orders and discovery requests.
11
Opp’n 2, ECF No. 115.)
12
(Defs.’
The Court has considered the arguments raised in Vallery’s
13
Motion and Defendants’ Opposition.
14
DENIES in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery-Related Relief [ECF
15
No. 110].
I.
16
17
The Court GRANTS in part and
APPLICABLE LAW
In response to a request for production of documents under
18
Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is to
19
produce all responsive documents in the party’s “possession,
20
custody, or control.”
21
required to produce a document that is in the possession of a
22
nonparty entity if the party has the legal right to obtain the
23
document.
24
1995).
25
the legal right of the responding party to obtain documents from
26
other sources upon demand.
27
7 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 34.14[2][b],
28
at 34-75 (3d ed. 2011) (footnote omitted).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).
A party may be
Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 619 (N.D. Cal.
The term “control” is broadly construed, and it includes
Id. (quotation and citations omitted);
2
08cv00095 DMS(RBB)
1
“[W]hen a response to a production of documents is not a
2
production or an objection, but an answer, the party must answer
3
under oath.”
4
§ 34.13[2][a], at 34-57 (footnote omitted); see id. § 34.14[2][a],
5
at 34-73 (footnote omitted); see also Schwartz v. Marketing Publ’g
6
Co., 153 F.R.D. 16, 21 (D. Conn. 1994) (citing cases establishing
7
that the absence of possession, custody, or control of documents
8
that have been requested must be sworn to by the responding party).
7 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice,
9
10
II.
A.
DISCUSSION
Order Directing Further Responses
11
1.
Missing pages
12
Based on the documents produced by Defendants, the Court finds
13
that Vallery’s arguments are without merit.
14
summary provided to Vallery is complete; Plaintiff mistakes fax
15
pagination with the number of pages in the document.
16
Vallery believes the inmate appeal log is incomplete, his suspicion
17
is insufficient to refute Defendants’ assertion that the document
18
is complete.
19
Defendants to disclose missing pages from Exhibits A and D is
20
DENIED.
21
2.
22
The Plaintiff’s Motion seeking an order instructing Defendants
23
24
The employee history
Although
The Plaintiff’s request for an order directing
Diligence of search
to conduct a more diligent search is GRANTED in part.
With respect to document request 40, Defendant Brown asserts
25
he has produced all documents in his current employer’s possession.
26
Brown is to supplement his response to include any additional
27
responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control
28
reflecting the reasons for all of Brown’s transfers between
3
08cv00095 DMS(RBB)
1
prisons, not just his transfer to the California Institute for Men.
2
If true, Officer Brown must also answer under oath that there are
3
no other responsive documents in his possession, custody, or
4
control.
5
F.R.D. 150, 155 (D. P.R. 2010).
6
See Vazquez-Fernandez v. Cambridge Coll., Inc., 269
As to document requests 4 and 6, Defendant Brown is to
7
supplement his responses by providing documents concerning any
8
inmate grievances filed against him for conduct similar to that
9
alleged by Vallery.
If there are no further responsive documents
10
for either request, Brown must indicate so under oath with
11
corresponding specificity.
12
For document request 5 seeking incident reports reflecting
13
altercations between Defendant Brown and inmates, it is unclear
14
whether the Defendant has produced all materials in his control
15
because Defendants’ Third Amended Supplemental Responses are not
16
before the Court.
17
responses and also answer under oath.
For this reason, Brown is to supplement his
18
Finally, with regard to document request 42, Vallery
19
challenges Defendant Brown’s response relating to Calipatria’s
20
investigation of Vallery’s claims against him.
21
provide any additional documents to Plaintiff and must state under
22
oath the absence of possession, custody, or control over further
23
responsive documents.
The Defendant is to
24
3.
25
Vallery’s Motion for an order directing the Defendants to
26
27
28
Document search parameters
search for the correct classes of documents is DENIED.
The Court ordered Defendants to respond to document requests 4
and 6 seeking inmate complaints against Officer Brown for conduct
4
08cv00095 DMS(RBB)
1
similar to that alleged in the Second Amended Complaint.
2
gravamen of Vallery’s allegations is that Officer Brown committed
3
sexual misconduct.
4
responsive documents exist, as discussed previously, Plaintiff is
5
not entitled to the expanded scope of production that he describes.
6
The
Aside from stating under oath that no further
Additionally, the Court did not order Defendants to produce
7
complaints from other law enforcement agencies in response to
8
document requests 7, 13, 20, 25, and 31.
(See Order Granting in
9
Part & Den. in Part 17-21, ECF No. 102.)
Vallery is not entitled
10
to any further response.
11
4.
12
The Court DENIES Vallery’s request that the Court order “any
Declaration concerning document destruction policy
13
CDCR employee” to provide a declaration confirming the existence of
14
a policy regarding the destruction of prison records.
15
requests 10, 17, 23, and 29, Plaintiff is not entitled to a
16
declaration from an unspecified third party.
17
Dee, Bell, Stratton, and Bourland must establish the nonexistence
18
of complaints filed before 2006 in a statement made under oath.
19
These Defendants are also to state under oath that the documents
20
produced relating to complaints filed between 2006 and January 16,
21
2008, are exhaustive.
For document
Even so, Defendants
22
5.
Declaration as to actual document destruction
23
Likewise, for document requests 10, 17, 23, and 29, the Court
24
will not direct an unidentified third party to submit a declaration
25
that the relevant inmate complaints against Defendants Dee, Bell,
26
Stratton, and Bourland prior to 2006 were in fact purged.
27
extent, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.
28
Defendants, however, are to state under oath that they do not have
5
To that
The four responding
08cv00095 DMS(RBB)
1
possession, custody, or control over additional responsive
2
documents.
3
6.
Document search declaration
4
Vallery also seeks an order directing “the person or persons
5
who actually conducted the searches and reviews” to submit a
6
declaration describing the searches.
7
similarly DENIED; however all Defendants are to state under oath
8
that all responsive documents have been provided.
9
B.
Plaintiff’s request is
Independent Judicial Determination
10
Based on the above, the Court DENIES Vallery’s request for a
11
judicial determination as to the adequacy of Defendants’ document
12
requests.
13
14
15
16
17
III.
CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery-Related Relief [ECF No.
110] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.
The Defendants are to serve Vallery with supplemental
18
responses to these document requests, and, where
19
appropriate, include statements under oath no later than
20
December 2, 2011.
21
eliminate sensitive personal information, such as social
22
security numbers, home addresses, telephone numbers,
23
family and health insurance information.
24
2.
The records may be redacted only to
The hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
25
set for January 9, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. remains as set.
26
Plaintiff may file a one comprehensive supplemental
27
opposition by December 15, 2011.
The Defendants may
28
6
08cv00095 DMS(RBB)
1
reply to Vallery’s Opposition [ECF No. 79] and any
2
supplemental opposition by December 30, 2011.
3
4
DATE:
November 23, 2011
5
6
cc:
__________________________________
RUBEN B. BROOKS
United States Magistrate Judge
Judge Sabraw
All Parties of Record
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
K:\COMMON\BROOKS\CASES\1983\PRISONER\VALLERY095\Order re Disc.-Related Relief.wpd
7
08cv00095 DMS(RBB)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?